complaint and suit for injunction

7/27/2019 COMPLAINT AND SUIT FOR INJUNCTION

1/4

Page 1 of 4

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKYFRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT

DIVISIONCIVIL ACTION NO.: 13-CI-

EDWARD MARKSBERRY, DemocraticCandidate for the United States Senate PLAINTIFF

vs.

DANIEL LOGSDON, In his personalCapacity and as Chairman of Kentucky

Democratic Party DEFENDANT

COMPLAINT AND SUIT FOR INJUNCTION

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Edward Marksberry, by counsel, and for his Complaint for

damages against the above named Defendant, states as follows:

I. JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATION

1. At all times material hereto Plaintiff was a resident and citizen of the

Commonwealth of Kentucky, residing in Daviess County, Kentucky, as well as a declared

candidate to be Kentucky!s Democratic Party nominee for the United States Senate.

2. At all times material hereto the Defendant, Daniel Logsdon, was Chairman of the

Kentucky Democratic Party and its agent. The Kentucky Democratic Party is located in Franklin

County, Kentucky at 190 Democratic Drive, Frankfort, KY 40601.

3. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court in that the claims for relief exceed the

minimum jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Venue is proper in this Court in that the Defendant, Daniel Logsdon, is a resident

and citizen of Franklin County, Kentucky and because the alleged acts in question, which are


2/4

Page 2 of 4

described below, substantially occurred through the efforts of the Kentucky Democratic Party

headquarters located in Franklin County, Kentucky.

II. ALLEGED FACTS

5. In the weeks preceding July 1, 2013, Plaintiff and candidate for the United States

Senate, Edward Marksberry requested that the Kentucky Democratic Party forward various

announcements about his campaign events and campaign media productions through the

Kentucky Democratic Party electronic mailing network. Shortly thereafter, candidate Edward

Marksberry was informed that sending out such communications would be in violation of the

Kentucky Democratic Party!

s By-Laws which prohibit the Kentucky Democratic Party from

using its assets to endorse or support one Democratic candidate over another Democratic

candidate in a Democratic primary election.

6. Candidate Edward Marksberry reviewed the By-Laws and found that Article I(d)

does indeed include such a prohibition, (See Attachment A), which is incorporated herein by

reference.

7. Given the position taken by the Kentucky Democratic Party by and through

Defendant Daniel Logsdon, and given the clear and unambiguous language of the Kentucky

Democratic Party!s By-Laws as described above, it came as somewhat of a surprise, and indeed

a shock, when the Kentucky Democratic Party released an announcement on behalf of

Democratic Party candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes, and even use it as a mechanism of raising

political funds. (See Attachment B, July 1, 2013 e-mail from Kentucky Democratic Party).

8. The above e-mail from the Kentucky Democratic Party is a clear and

unambiguous violation of its own stated verbal understanding of the rules upon which it would

govern itself but is also in violation of the clear and unambiguous language of its By-Laws.


3/4

Page 3 of 4

Clearly, resources of Kentucky Democratic Party were utilized to promote Alison Lundergan

Grimes!campaign and denied to supporting the candidacy of Edward Marksberry.

III. ALLEGED THEORIES OF LEGAL LIABILITY

9. At all times material hereto Plaintiff and candidate for the United States Senate,

Edward Marksberry was a member of the Kentucky Democratic Party.

10. The By-Laws of the Kentucky Democratic Party is an agreement between the

party and its members as to how they will conduct themselves.

11. As a candidate for the United States Senate within the Kentucky Democratic

Party, Plaintiff and candidate for the United States Senate, Edward Marksberry, is a specific and

intended beneficiary of that portion of the By-Laws discussed above and which prohibits the

Kentucky Democratic Party or its leaders from directly supporting one Democratic Party over

another in a Democratic Primary.

12. As a result of the above, the Defendant, who is sued in his individual capacity

and as an agent for the Kentucky Democratic Party, Daniel Logsdon, has breeched his fiduciary

duty and responsibility to all democrats similarly situated and specifically including Plaintiff and

candidate of the United States Senate, Edward Marksberry.

13. Further, the Defendant, who is sued in his individual and representative capacity,

Daniel Logsdon, had breached the agreement and contract between the Kentucky Democratic

Party and persons situated within the democratic party, such as candidate for the United States

Senate, Edward Marksberry.


4/4

Page 4 of 4

IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

14. As a direct and proximate result of the actions described above, Daniel Logsdon

has caused Plaintiff and candidate for the United States Senate, Edward Marksberry to be

damaged in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court.

15. As a further direct and consequence of the actions alleged above, the Defendant!s

conduct is irreparably and unfairly damaged to candidacy of Edward Marksberry for the

Democratic nomination for the United States Senate election.

16. Plaintiff and candidate for the United States Senate, Edward Marksberry requests

that Daniel Logsdon and the Kentucky Democratic Party be prohibited from further violations of

their own By-Laws regarding favoring one democratic candidate over another in the Democratic

Party primary.

17. Plaintiff moves for leave to amend as necessary;

18. Plaintiff moves for any further and just relief to which he may appear entitled.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Edward Marksberry, Democratic Candidate for the United

States Senate, moves this Honorable Court to GRANT the above requested relief, and for any

other further and just relief to which he may appear entitled.

This the day of July, 2013.

Respectfully Submitted,

Evan Taylor2207 Frederica Street

Owensboro, KY 42301(270) 683-3533

Counsel for Plaintiff

complaint and suit for injunction

Documents